Not eyewitness

[Stu]

evolution is a law as far as i'm concerned.

Macro-evolution is a myth.

Evolution is fact, the intermeidates are there, the proof is there.

What intermediates?
What proof?

Most people who think freely come to the same conclusion.

Wrong, the tide is shifting away from evolution the more we come to understand about biological life.
Your position was understandable about 10 years ago, but times change, you need to keep up with the times.

Ignoring the overwhelming facts borders on ignorance.

Quite right. Time you updated yourself on just what random mutation / natural selection can, and more importantly, can't achieve.

Phyletic gradualism (neo-Darwinism) deals in trench warfare, not a so-called arms race. In other words it breaks down existing systems.

Never in the history of human studies has evolution been shown capable of creating any novel function, not one.
Not even 1 single new protein-protein binding site has been created throughout the trillions and trillions of mutated pathogens we have witnessed through our study of the likes of Malaria, HIV and E.coli.

Facts? Yes indeed.

[Christian2]

How can you guys relly on a book that is based of oral history written 30 years after the man died? Nobody was writting things down as jesus spoke so how do we know they are even close to accuarate.

You assume too much. See red above.

You might want to read the following articles:

http://carm.org/evidence-and-answers

Islam seems like the most historicaly accurate religon if you ask me because it was all wrote in first hand accounts.

Again, you are assuming.

About Islam:

http://carm.org/evidence-and-answers

[bippy123]

If macroevolution is a fact then I got some beachfront property to sell you in Nebraska lol.
Even the top evolutionary biologists that met at the 1980 chicago conference addmited that you couldnt extrapolate macro evolution from micro evolution and that is why Steven Gould proposed the theory of punctuated equilibrium, because there were no gradual intermediary species found to support Darwinian evolution, and because of that Gould proposed that there were no intermediary species because evolutioon made a magical jump in between these species. This has never been observed to happen in nature.

Heck even the equivalent of 200,000 years of fruit fly evolution (21+ years) observed in a laboratory there has never once been a new species that emerged out of these fruit flys. They bombarded them with radiation to cause mutations and subjected these fruit flies to every harsh environmental conditions, yes in the end the fruit flies remained fruit flys. Not only that but the mutations that came out of the bombardment of radiation either crippled these fruit flies or killed them outright. Macro evolution is a myth and the evidence seems to get worse for this magical theory every passing year.

They did the same thing with bacteria with even worse results for macroevolution because bacteria has a shorter life cycle then fruit flys. Now evolutionists want us to believe punctated equilibrium that we also cant observe?
Dopes any sane person call this science?

On top of that you cant explain the formation of complex information through evolution. Throughout human history complex information and language has only been shown to arise from a mind. DNA is a language and thats even stated in biology texts.

I still cant believe how naive I was when I believed in Theistic evolution.

It took a good dvd to start me on the journey to intelligent design.

[bippy123]

Amen Stu

for 150 years Evolutionists have been trying so hard to even find one intermediary. Its almost like they are trying to force find even one intermediary. IF this were a fact Intermediaries would be all over the place in the fossil records in abundance.
They can no longer stand by the soft body (cant find those pesky intermediaries) in the pre-cambrian rocks since they now have found those precambrian species and non of them are intermediaries to the cambrian animals found. Its like the cambrian animals just popped up as if they were created or someone added an explosive amount of information to Life.

Lets say it again evolutionists, complex information only has been observed to arise from a mind

evolution is a law as far as i'm concerned.

Macro-evolution is a myth.

Evolution is fact, the intermeidates are there, the proof is there.

What intermediates?
What proof?

Most people who think freely come to the same conclusion.

Wrong, the tide is shifting away from evolution the more we come to understand about biological life.
Your position was understandable about 10 years ago, but times change, you need to keep up with the times.

Ignoring the overwhelming facts borders on ignorance.

Quite right. Time you updated yourself on just what random mutation / natural selection can, and more importantly, can't achieve.

Phyletic gradualism (neo-Darwinism) deals in trench warfare, not a so-called arms race. In other words it breaks down existing systems.

Never in the history of human studies has evolution been shown capable of creating any novel function, not one.
Not even 1 single new protein-protein binding site has been created throughout the trillions and trillions of mutated pathogens we have witnessed through our study of the likes of Malaria, HIV and E.coli.

Facts? Yes indeed.

[Murray]

If macroevolution is a fact then I got some beachfront property to sell you in Nebraska lol.
Even the top evolutionary biologists that met at the 1980 chicago conference addmited that you couldnt extrapolate macro evolution from micro evolution and that is why Steven Gould proposed the theory of punctuated equilibrium, because there were no gradual intermediary species found to support Darwinian evolution, and because of that Gould proposed that there were no intermediary species because evolutioon made a magical jump in between these species. This has never been observed to happen in nature.

Heck even the equivalent of 200,000 years of fruit fly evolution (21+ years) observed in a laboratory there has never once been a new species that emerged out of these fruit flys. They bombarded them with radiation to cause mutations and subjected these fruit flies to every harsh environmental conditions, yes in the end the fruit flies remained fruit flys. Not only that but the mutations that came out of the bombardment of radiation either crippled these fruit flies or killed them outright. Macro evolution is a myth and the evidence seems to get worse for this magical theory every passing year.

They did the same thing with bacteria with even worse results for macroevolution because bacteria has a shorter life cycle then fruit flys. Now evolutionists want us to believe punctated equilibrium that we also cant observe?
Dopes any sane person call this science?

On top of that you cant explain the formation of complex information through evolution. Throughout human history complex information and language has only been shown to arise from a mind. DNA is a language and thats even stated in biology texts.

I still cant believe how naive I was when I believed in Theistic evolution.

It took a good dvd to start me on the journey to intelligent design.

do you have a link to the fruit fly thing? I'm very interested

[bippy123]

Hello Murray, here is a good link to start with.

http://www.apologeticspress.org/APConte ... ticle=2501

Wish I could post more but I'm on my iPod, but this should help in understanding one of the massive problems with the fairy tale of macroevolution .

[Byblos]

I still cant believe how naive I was when I believed in Theistic evolution.

It took a good dvd to start me on the journey to intelligent design.

Are you saying all theistic evolutionists are naive (considering the Catholic Church has no official pronouncement on it one way or the other)?

[bippy123]

I still cant believe how naive I was when I believed in Theistic evolution.

It took a good dvd to start me on the journey to intelligent design.

Are you saying all theistic evolutionists are naive (considering the Catholic Church has no official pronouncement on it one way or the other)?

No I'm not, I was saying the I was naive when I was learning about it . While I do agree with them about microevolution I disagree on macro, but like you said Byblos us Catholics are open to either, and to me macro is as much inductive as ID, I just see it as a failed model

[pebbleanrock]

How can you guys relly on a book that is based of oral history written 30 years after the man died? Nobody was writting things down as jesus spoke so how do we know they are even close to accuarate. Islam seems like the most historicaly accurate religon if you ask me because it was all wrote in first hand accounts

Mohammad couldn't write, so he had a scribe when he produced the Koran. He credited it to an angel called Gabriel. Funny that!! Guess who gave Daniel and Mary, Jesus' mother their revelations 500 years apart,2500years ago in the bible. Yep. Gabriel. We know that the old Testament was in existence when Jesus was born and that there are HUNDREDS of prophecies relating to him in it . Most of them came true during his life. Psalm 22 even has his crucifiction circumstances which He could not have organised. The older you get in this life you will realize that there is something fishy going on. It could be with UFO's, magic, coincidences, strange happenings, but something is just not quite right. Well, I can promise you, all the answers are in that little book, The Bible. I have 7 versions including 2 study bibles because of the different interpretations and you will find a treasure in there. As if it were a huge gold nugget in a field, you will want to rush out and buy that field. 90% of churches have missed the message. Do not believe the preachings of most men, believe the Bible and it will set you free in this life just for a start. You will jump for joy when you learn what is about to happen very soon, on the earth, then in the universe.

[Tpatt17]

We can rely on the oral Histories, and written accounts that are in the new testament, the entire old testament was memorized by the scribes, including those who constantly persecuted Jesus; they kept the law, which they would ofter say when accusing him, like "its not lawful..." they would say this against miracles preformed on the sabbath. They had very good memories when it came to scripture. One thing that has been very helpful is the Dead sea Scrolls, showing that the books were faithfully remebered and written. They show the bible we have now is very close to the original writings. When it comes to the Gospels, church tradition holds that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were written by those who bare their names. One was probably written before the fall of Jerusalem (70 AD), others anywhere from 30+ years, John has been accepted as from 85-90, along with 1,2 and 3 John and Revelation. For believers we can accept that the Holy Spirit assisted in their memories. But we also can look at the people who were with Jesus for 3 years, that put to practice his words. Is it possible that they were written earlier? Maybe, there is no date stamped on them, but from internal evidence not one mention the fall of Jerusalem (but they were not writing a history of that time) so its possible some may be earlier than thought. The point is we know that these people were eyewitnesses to what Jesus did (for example John chaper 1). A very good book about this is "Can we Trust the Gospels" by Mark D. Roberts